Cindy Cross’ false pretense State, National, International, posted by jimf01, a resident of another community, on Sep 13, 2011 at 1:21 pm jimf01 is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Cindy Cross’ false pretense
The PW’s blogger ripped in to the Tea Party audience at the CNN Republican Presidential debate. To try to make her point that Tea Partiers showed their ‘true colors’ as a heartless and cruel group of people, Cindy had to create a false scenario and completely distort the facts of what occurred in Tampa, Florida last night, 9/12.
Now we can accept for a moment that Cindy was actually watching this debate, and actually hit pause on her DVR, and actually sat closer to the TV to listen to a portion of the debate over again. We will assume for a moment that Cindy didn’t simply read the hit piece du jour from Huffington Post or some other liberal media outlet.
Cindy Cross defamed Tea Partiers as a group in her description of what she saw on her TV. This link has the video of the portion of the debate that got Cindy says got her worked up.
CNN host Wolf Blitzer gave Congressman Ron Paul a hypothetical scenario: "A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what, I'm not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I'm healthy, I don't need it, but something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it. Who's going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?"
Ron Paul advocates for individual freedoms, and at one point in his answer, Rep Paul says, “That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks.”, drawing cheers and applause from the audience.
Wolf Blitzer interrupts “But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?”
At least two people from the audience yelled, “yes”, and a bit of laughter is heard, but there was no further applause or crowd reaction.
Ron Paul continued his answer, rebutting the hypothetical situation and the false choice offered by the CNN host with facts: “I practiced medicine at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of ‘em. We never turned anybody away.” At this moment, the response from the audience was more loud applause.
“We’ve given up on this concept that we might take care of ourselves, assume responsibility for ourselves, our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it”.
But Cindy Cross apparently heard things differently. Writing in her blog today, she changed the spot where the audience applauded:
Blitzer: “But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?”
At this moment two people from the audience yelled, “yes” followed by thunderous applause.
Cindy Cross states on her own blog that she watched this scene at least twice, and she still couldn’t get it right. Cindy is fully entitled to her conclusions and opinions, but as the saying goes, she is not entitled to her own facts.
Cindy Cross needs to respond with a correction of the facts. Of course, if she does, it changes the entire meaning and point of her blog entry from today.
Posted by ethyl's mom, a resident of the Parkside neighborhood, on Sep 13, 2011 at 1:27 pm
It really shouldn't matter whether jimf0l, Arnold, steve, mike from the high country, and Stacey are the same person. What is important are the ideas and that they get discussed in a rigorous manner. BTW, I heard matters just as Cindy reported them to have occurred.
Posted by A Neighbor, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 13, 2011 at 6:56 pm
Instead of taking offense at Cindy's words, take offense at those in the crowd who yelled out that the hypothetical man should die. They are a greater offender of decent sensibilities and American values than she, IMHO.
Posted by Steve, a resident of the Parkside neighborhood, on Sep 13, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Even more reason for you (a neighbor) to take this poor lost soul into your house to help him pay for his selfish decision. I'm sure there are enough bleeding hearts in this town to compensate for the stupidity of the hypothetical loser in this story.
Posted by Mike, a resident of the Highland Oaks neighborhood, on Sep 14, 2011 at 1:17 am
The post was not in reference to a discussion point. It was to identify your very disturbing behavior while letting you know that your identity was clear enough to everyone concerned not to present a huge problem for me.
Posted by Jimbob, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 14, 2011 at 1:25 am
Well it should be about a discussion point, steve. Without a discussion point, it's just one ad hominem after another - clearly the sign of a sore loser. I don't call you creepy. What gives? Where there's proof there's usually pudding.
Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community, on Sep 14, 2011 at 12:17 pm jimf01 is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
24 hours have elapsed, and Cindy Cross will not respond, either to defend or retract any part of her false attack on Tea Partiers. PW management, for their part respond by saying via email that they want "bloggers who have strong opinions and can articulate (and defend) those opinions"
Cindy Cross appears to be exempt from the defend portion of that requirement.
Posted by Judy, a resident of the Avignon neighborhood, on Sep 14, 2011 at 1:16 pm
Unless you were at the debate, Jim0fl, you really can't say anything more than Cindy has. But I'm rushing ahead of myself, steve. Your text -- like the other one you posted under a different name -- is all garbled. Just what are you trying to say?
Posted by dublinmike, a resident of Dublin, on Sep 14, 2011 at 11:00 pm dublinmike is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
jimf01, "heartless and cruel group of people" so, what's your point?
The Republicans have a narrow vision. It's about me-ism. Right?
This means allowing other humans to die. It's a narrow viewpoint. It saves money. Money... more precious than people. Harsh, but true. Having lived with and around Republicans in the Central Valley, I know.
Posted by A Neighbor, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 14, 2011 at 11:15 pm
Cindy Cross posts her editorials on the PW, which has a small but devoted following. Michelle Bachmann, on the other hand, has a global audience and is ridiculously prone to gross exaggerations, misquotations and outright lies. Her inability to absorb whole issues and discuss them intelligently has doomed her bid to be the tea party candidate in 2012.
Bachmann said an executive order signed by Perry would have "forced" young girls to take a "potentially dangerous drug." But the order allowed parents to opt-out of the safe and effective drug.
Then she said that the HPV vaccine causes mental retardation, a statement which has no basis in fact.
Bachmann said that raising the debt ceiling was a "blank check" for Obama except that the borrowed funds go to pay obligations that Congress had previously approved, and the measure called for substantial spending cuts as well.
And the notion she holds that one can be "cured" of homosexuality through prayer and talk therapy is ignorant and frightening.
Bottom line: I would take Cindy Cross and her editorials any day over the half-baked, hair-brain presidential aspirations of someone like Michelle Bachmann.
Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community, on Sep 15, 2011 at 9:58 am jimf01 is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Mike - Sorry for your traumatic experience with those mean people, but the Tea Partiers I heard applauded loudly in support of Ron Paul's notion of individual freedoms, in terms of the hypothetical young mans freedom of choice to take a risk and not buy medical insurance.
They also applauded loudly the notion of the way we did things in this country when Dr Paul was practicing medicine, no one was turned away, the community and the churches took care of people.
Both of those crowd reactions fly in the face of your characterization of Republicans.
Yes, there were a few loud shouts of 'yes' in the crowd when Wolf Blitzer presented the false choice to Ron Paul, asking do we let this hypothetical person just die.
Maybe you should look up those mean CV Republicans and ask if any of them were in the crowd in Tampa Monday. I can assure you that those few who shouted yes do not represent the Tea Party, no matter what the mainstream media and Cindy Cross would try to make you believe.
Posted by Amy, a resident of the Amador Estates neighborhood, on Sep 15, 2011 at 2:55 pm
Separate from your topic, can you believe the censorship of conservative thought that this Pleasanton Weekly editor exhbits? I just posted a completely accurate item related to Obama's Jobs Act and backed it up with relevant "first and second-level" source data...and on both posts, the PW restricted user comments to those registered.
If this doesn't reveal that they don't like comments criticizing the Democrat principles...especially Obama's, I don't know what does. (At least they didn't delete the posting altogether...so I will give them that credit.)
Looks like you and I are among the few conservatives in the Pleasanton area (at least those who read this PW periodically) fighting for America to remain a free country, based upon the US Constitution.
Posted by Gina Channell-Allen, president of the Pleasanton Weekly, on Sep 15, 2011 at 4:31 pm Gina Channell-Allen is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Amy, That post wasn't restricted by the editorial staff here. Original posters have the option to restrict it, which is what I assume happened. However, since you're accusing us of doing it, I'm guessing you didn't mean for it to be restricted, so I unlocked it.
We encourage thoughtful, civil discourse and only restrict threads when the conversation becomes rude or completely off topic.
Posted by Amy, a resident of the Amador Estates neighborhood, on Sep 15, 2011 at 4:44 pm
Thank you for clarification.
I have posted before and have never restricted comments...so I do not know how this could have occurred. And I do know that comments from conservatives have been considerably restricted before by PW...so I assume this is what happened.